Draft FEIS Jan 2013 Revised Chapter 1 - Introduction

7/29/2019 Draft FEIS Jan 2013 Revised Chapter 1 - Introduction

1/26

1-1 Introduct ion and Descr ipt ion of Plan Changes (As rev ised 12/ 21/ 12)

1.0

Introduction and Description ofPlan Changes


2/26


1.0Introduction and Description of

Plan Changes

1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this document is to consider and address: (i) the environmental impacts

associated with the applicants proposed project; (ii) issues raised by the Planning Board and the

publ ic; (iii ) project alternatives; and (iv) mit igation measures.

The applicants proposed project calls for the construction of a 121 unit assisted livingcommunity with associated amenities and improvements. The proposed assisted livingcommuni ty wil l feature 121 bedrooms, wi th 168 beds in 105,000 s.f. Forty of those uni ts wil l be ina separate, segregated memory care unit, which will be a restricted area and none of the residentswil l be permitted to dr ive. Of fundamental import, over 50% of the entire facil ity w il l be utili zedfor amenity space, such as dining halls, activ ity rooms, TV and movie rooms, etc. The residentialarea will be less than 58,000 s.f. so this community cannot be viewed as a 105,000 s.f. residentialmulti-family building.

The use features low off-site impacts due, primarily, to the average entry age of 82 years old,which limi ts vehicular usage and overall traffic impacts; coupled w ith memory care residentsinability to drive.

The project is proposed for the property located at 30 South Broadway, which is in the MF

zoning distri ct. Currentl y, assisted livi ng is not a permitted or specially permitted use in

Irvington. Due to the unique nature of an assisted l iv ing use and i ts programmatic requirements,

the appl icant determined that the use should be permit ted by special permit w ith bulk and area

requirements that are appropriate for the use and consistent with the character of the area.

Accord ingly , the appl icant submit ted a peti ti on to the Vil lage Board of Trustees requesti ng that

the zoning code be amended to all ow for such a use.

Special permit uses possess characteristics of such unique and special forms that each specific use

must be considered as an individual case. In this case, the existing and uniform bulk and area

requirements for all special permit uses do not take into consideration the unique nature of an

assisted living use or, for that matter, any of the other special permit uses. Additionally, the


3/26


existing and uniform bulk and area requirement do not address the required site components

necessary to comply with current fire safety standards, such as fire access lanes. By identifying

fire access lanes as buildings, the developable lands are unfairly reduced as they result in little to

no visual impact on the surrounding properties (i.e. there are no light and air impacts, whichtypically drive setbacks to property lines). Therefore, the applicant has proposed bulk and area

restrictions that would be appropriate for an assisted living community.

In reviewing the proposed zone text amendment, the Planning Board has considered not only the

nature of the proposed use, which is akin to multi-family, but also the character of the

neighborhood in which the use is being proposed, and particularly the adjacent multiple family

community at 14 South Broadway, as well as its overall impacts on the community.

With respect to the nature of the use, it is very similar to multi-family in that it is a building

containing more than two dwelling units. The fact that the proposed assisted living community

serves seniors (average age of 82) and provides daily living assistance to its residents, does notnegate the fact that at its core the proposed project is a building with multiple dwelling units.

There are several multi-family developments in close proximity to the project site, including the

neighboring 14 South Broadway. Therefore, the proposed use is in harmony with the character of

the surrounding neighborhood.

While some members of the public have argued that the size and scale of the use is out of

character with the surrounding neighborhood, the Planning Board had to look no further than

the adjoining property at 14 South Broadway as an example of use with a similar size and scale.

By way of comparison 14 South Broadway contains two multi-family buildings totaling

approximately 80,000 s.f. on 2.33 acres (101,495 s.f.) while the proposed assisted living facility

consists of approximately 105,000 s.f. above grade with an additional 25,000 s.f. below grade,consisting of parking and mechanicals. The subject 4.6 acre site is elevated, sited above Broadway

and the adjoining properties to the south and west, and is at grade with 14 South Broadway to

the north. Due to this natural setting, visual impacts are naturally mitigated.

During the Draft EIS process, the essence of the comments focused on the size, mass, and visual

impacts of the project. The redesign located the buildings in essentially the same area utilizing

the same access point, entry road, existing house location, and settled the western and southern

wings in virtually the same area. To address the concerns of the public, the buffer setbacks from

Broadway and the Aqueduct were respected, except for emergency vehicle access, retaining walls

and a small parking area, and the building height was reduced to 2 stories with a subterranean

floor being utilized for a significant amount of amenity space. In addition, 37 of the 50 parkingspaces were located underground and the existing house was replaced with a much more

functional and efficient house that allows for the location of 8 residential units therein. This

allows the design to break the mass of the western wing by providing for a 14 foot connector in

the middle; a similar technique is utilized between the new entry facility and the memory care

unit. The longest length of building visible at any one time is approximately 220 feet, with the

angles and breaks addressing the massing. Finally, the new design allows for the proposed

community to be framed by numerous existing trees in excess of 100 feet tall, when compared to

the new buildings of 35 to 40 feet. See Exhibit 15 through Exhibit 29, which illustrate the

proposed estate house, peak elevations, and views from surrounding areas.


4/26


The buildings at 14 South Broadway are 4 stories (3 residential floors on top of at-grade parking

garage) and are approximately 40 feet high. Both the number of stories and height exceed what is

permitted in the Irvington code. Furthermore, the existing main house on the FEE site is non-compliant with the existing zoning regulations. For example it is more than 35 feet in height

measured from the lowest adjacent elevation to the building and it is over 2.5 stories. The

proposed assisted living building is 2-3 stories and approximately 43 feet high.

In terms of coverage, 14 South Broadway has a total impervious area of approximately 59,475 s.f

or 59%. The proposed assisted living project has a total impervious area of approximately 101,475

s.f. or 50%.

Finally, the proposed project respects both the 125 foot Broadway buffer and the 50 foot Old

Croton Aqueduct buffer. The proposed building is set back 131 feet from Broadway and 50 feet

from the aqueduct. In contrast, 14 South Broadway respects neither buffer. The northernbuilding at 14 South Broadway is 86 feet from Broadway and 41 feet from the Aqueduct, while

the southern building is 93 feet from Broadway and 44 feet from the Aqueduct.

Based on the foregoing, in the applicants opinion, the proposed project is in character with the

surrounding neighborhood in terms of use and density.

1.2 Procedural RequirementsRelated tothe ProposedAction as Modified in this FEIS

As indicated above, the Planning Board of the Village of Irvington, NY is considering a proposal

submitted by The Continuum Company (the applicant) for a zone text amendment to the existing

MF Multi-Family zoning district to permit assisted living facilities as a Special Permit use in the

Village and to provide bulk and parking requirements for this use. The proposed development

will include 81 assisted living and 40 memory care units, along with off-street parking, loading,

common open space areas, and extensive indoor amenities.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that was prepared for this proposal included

a site plan for the development of the 121 units of assisted living and memory care on the site. As

described more fully below, the proposed site plan and the proposed zoning amendment have

been modified in this FEIS in response to comments received. The plan proposed in this FEIS

places 25% of the program and most of the parking below grade. It increases the Old CrotonAqueduct and South Broadway setback areas and significantly reduces the building mass along

South Broadway.

There were two alternative plans presented in the DEIS. One plan showed the adaptive re-use of

the existing estate house (the main building), which is located on the northern portion of the site.

The existing estate house would be used as administrative space for the proposed assisted living

development. A second plan showed a replacement building in the same location as the existing

main building. In this FEIS, the applicants plan calls for demolition of the 55 foot tall existing

main building, and its replacement with a 41 foot high building. The new building proposed in


5/26


this FEIS has administrative space and 8 assisted living units, which would allow a reduction in

the number of units in another portion of the site. A plan that adaptively re-uses the main

building is also shown in this FEIS for comparison purposes. See Section 1.4 below for more

detail on the plans with the replacement building.

It is noted that the overall program has not changed from the DEIS to the FEIS, i.e., there would

still be 121 units, 81 assisted living and 40 memory care. The assisted living would service

residents that average 82 years of age and older.

The Review Process

The applicant filed a zoning petition for this development with the Irvington Village Board of

Trustees on May 9, 2011. The Village Planning Board was designated to be the Lead Agency for

review of the applicants proposal under provisions of the New York State Environmental

Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The Planning Board issued a Positive Declaration, requiring the

preparation of a DEIS, by the applicant. It held multiple scoping sessions, public meetings and

public hearings on the DEIS. The applicant has met with abutting, concerned neighbors on

numerous occasions.

The DEIS was accepted as complete, pursuant to SEQRA, by the Planning Board February 1,

2012. Although not required under SEQRA, the Planning Board held a public hearing on March

7, 2012, which remained open at continued hearings on April 4 th and May 2nd. Public comment

was received at the hearings, and the record for written comments was extended until May 23,

2012. All verbal and written comments that were received are addressed in this Final

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).

Additional comments received since the close of the comment period include those provided bythe Planning Board and our staff and consultants. There were also comments from the

Environmental Conservation Board. These additional comments are addressed in this FEIS.

Although the first two drafts of the FEIS were prepared by the applicant, the document has been

thoroughly reviewed and revised by the Planning Board with the assistance technical advisors,

including the Village Attorney, Building Inspector and the Village planning and engineering

consultants, making certain that it reflects the position of the Planning Board, particularly with

respect to impacts and mitigation, and as such the FEIS is the Planning Boards document as

required by SEQRA.

Upon completion of the review of the FEIS, with additional public input, the Planning Board willdraft and adopt an Environmental Findings Statement that summarizes the SEQRA procedures

that were followed, and addresses impacts, mitigation and alternatives considered in the DEIS

and FEIS. The Planning Board will then make a recommendation to the Village Board of Trustees

on the proposed zoning amendment. If it chooses to move forward with the proposal, the Village

Board would then conduct its own public hearing prior to rendering a decision on the zoning

amendment. Subsequent actions would include review of a Special Permit application, site plan

approval, and review and approval of other permits required by the Village, the County and

New York State.


6/26


1.3 Structure of the Final EnvironmentalImpact Statement

The FEIS describes the propose project, as modified since the submission of the DEIS, and

provides responses to all of the substantive comments on the DEIS. More specifically:

This Chapter 1.0 provides a summary of SEQRA procedures and describes the proposed plan

and its alternatives. It compares the plan proposed in the DEIS (the DEIS Plan) with the plan

proposed in this FEIS (the FEIS plan). Chapter 1.0 also highlights the major issues raised during

the review process and the applicants response to these issues.

Chapter 2.0 of the FEIS provides an index of all comments received, which were confirmed by

Village advisors as the full set of comments received by the Village during the review period.

Chapter 3.0 of the FEIS provides the comments and the corresponding responses, groupedaround chapters in the DEIS, e.g. land use and zoning, topography, cultural resources.

The final chapter of the FEIS is a technical appendix, which includes the public hearings

transcripts and copies of the letters, e-mails and other documents received during the public

comment period on the DEIS. Also included in the technical appendices are the updated traffic

and stormwater management reports and other documents.

1.4 The FEIS Site Plan

Several comments on the applicants DEIS focused on the proposed site plan and its visual

impacts, particularly on South Broadway and the Old Croton Aqueduct, which border the project

site on its east and west sides. The proposed DEIS plan was viewed by some commenter, as well

as the Planning Board, as being too large for the site in terms of building and massing Although

the FEIS plan maintains the same program as the DEIS plan, it responds to a number of

comments on the DEIS plan relating to building mass, setbacks and views from South Broadway.

A description of the FEIS plan follows.

As indicated in Exhibit 1, the proposed development would be accessed from South Broadway by

the existing driveway that serves the FEE building. The driveway will be widened and a

sidewalk will be provided along its southern edge. Upon reaching the top of the hill, thedriveway divides in either a southerly or northerly direction. The northerly leg, to the right,

provides access to the loop road in front of the new main building. The access road then leads to

the 40 unit memory care building and the below grade parking area with access along a portion

of the Old Croton Aqueduct frontage. The below grade parking under the memory care building

is a major positive change from the DEIS plan.

The southerly or left leg of the access road runs parallel to South Broadway. It passes the sites

central open space and leads to an enclosed loading area in the southern portion of the site,

which is also a new feature in the FEIS Plan. The 81 assisted living units are located in buildings


7/26


that abut the central open space, which has been expanded and opened up to Route 9 in the FEIS

plan.

In order, to achieve these changes, the applicant placed approximately 25% of the proposedprogram space and approximately 75% of the required parking below grade. The effect of this

fundamental site plan change was to reduce building coverage from 22.2% of the site area in the

DEIS plan, to 18.8% of the site area in the FEIS. This enabled the new plan to provide more open

space at the critical edges of the site and to open up a meaningful central open space area that

helped preserve some large on-site trees.

Additionally the new plan reduced building heights by nearly one full story in each of the critical

wings of the building. The memory care (dementia) building remains at two stories only.

The Old Croton Aqueduct setback was increased from 35 feet in the DEIS plan to a 50 feet in the

FEIS plan. This change provides sufficient room for landscape screening. The South Broadway

setback was increased from 100 feet in the DEIS plan to 131 feet in the FEIS plan. Moreover, the

South Broadway frontage has been significantly improved in the FEIS. The long three story over

parking building in the DEIS plan has been eliminated. The view in the FEIS plan is that of an

open space window that leads to a view of the projects proposed central landscaped

lawn/terrace area, replacing the previous plans enclosed courtyard. See Exhibit 22, Open Space

Area. The Aqueduct frontage includes the 2 story memory care building and a portion of a 3-

story assisted living building. The assisted living building along the Aqueduct was partially

reduced to 2 stories because eight assisted living units have been located in the new main

building. See Exhibits 24 and 25, Perspective Rendering Looking East From Aqueduct.

The site plan drawings, elevations, photo-simulations and renderings provided at the end of this

Chapter show the FEIS plan, including the proposed landscape plan.


8/26


Table 1-1

Continuum, Irvington, NY

DEIS PLAN FEIS PLAN

Program: Total Units 121 121

Memory Care Units (40) (40)

Assisted Li ving Units (81) (81)

Total Beds 168 168

Floor Area: GFA above EL.164.5 105, 000 s.f. 78,567 s.f.

Parking: Below Grade 23 39

Surface 26 11

Setbacks: North 78(parking 15)

45

West (Aqueduct) 35 50

South 71 63

East (S. Broadway) 100 131

Broadway

Buffer (125

feet)

Aqueduct

Buffer

(50 feet)

100

34

131 feet, but the buf fer area has thesite access road, retaining wallsand parking wi thin it.

50 feet, but t he buffer area has theemergency access road and theaccess to the below grade park ingwithin it.

Coverage: Building = 1.07 ac; 23%Pavement/ walks/ courts= 0.83 ac; 17.9%

Total I mpervious = 1.9

ac; 41%

Building = 1.03 ac; 22.2%Driveway = 0.77 ac; 16.6%Outdoor Park ing = 0.04 ac; 0.8%Walks/ Curbs = 0.18 ac; 4.0%Patios = 0.28 ac; 6.0%Walls = 0.05 ac; 1.1%Total I mpervious = 2.35 ac; 50.7%

Height: Existing Main Building 55 NA

Proposed Main Building NA 41

Memory Care 2 stories, 30 feet 2 stories, 28 feet

Assisted Li ving 3 stor ies over exposedparki ng (56 feet)

2 to 3 stories (40 feet)


9/26


Currently, the zoning code permits a maximum building length of 180 feet and there has been

some discussion that this relates to safety concerns. There is nothing in the Zoning Code to

indicate this as an issue, but even if it were, all applicable Building Code requirements will haveto be satisfied and those requirements are based fundamentally on safety. We also note that the

buildings at 14 South Broadway are each approximately 270 feet long. Accordingly, safety may

not be the real issue.

The issue associated with maximum building length deals with visual impacts. Toward that end,

it is important to take into consideration all of the factors which deal with those visual impacts. It

has been claimed that the entire main building is one long building with a length of

approximately 550 feet. This claim ignores numerous significant factors associated with the

visual impacts of the proposed building, including the following:

1. The actual building faade along the Croton Aqueduct is approximately 240 feet

long;

2. The angled portion of the building between the Croton Aqueduct side and the

Station Road side is approximately 150 feet;

3. The actual faade paralleling Station Road is approximately 160 feet;

4. Ignoring the angled portion of the building, the greatest dimension that could be

attributed along the Croton Aqueduct is approximately 360 feet;

5. Similarly, and as noted above, ignoring the angle, the longest that the faade

could be said to face Station Road is approximately 260 feet;

6. Visual impacts are significantly attenuated due to the topography of the site;

7. The project, as proposed, also provides for significant screening which will also

mitigate visual impacts.

Notwithstanding the plan changes that reduce building mass and enhance the South Broadway

and Aqueduct frontages, there are important similarities between the DEIS plan and the FEIS

plan. Access to the site, for example, is still provided from the Broadway access that serves the

existing FEE main building. As in the DEIS plan, the access drive in the FEIS plan will be

widened and a sidewalk will be provided along its northerly edge. The driveway leads to thelandscaped circular driveway that is adjacent to the propertys southerly lot line, across from the

Irvington Estates cooperative housing development. Additional landscaping has been provided

along that common lot line.

In contrast, there are some important differences between the DEIS plan and the FEIS plan. For

example, parking and loading are hidden from view in the FEIS plan, e.g., the below grade

parking for 39 of the 50 required spaces is provided under the memory care building or

otherwise enclosed, rather than in a surface lot as in the DEIS plan. However, access to that

below building parking is provided from a driveway that runs parallel to the Aqueduct, within


10/26

1-10 Introduction and Descript ion of Plan Changes (As revised 12/ 21/ 12)

the Aqueduct buffer. The loading area in the FEIS plan is provided under the assisted living

building in the southern portion of the site, moving it from the more visible location in the DEIS

plan that was close to the main access drive for the facility

In the DEIS plan, the existing main building was proposed to be reused, but, as previously noted,

the FEIS plan proposes its demolition and replacement with a similar structure in the same

location. The decision to demolish the existing main house was made based upon the buildings

condition and physical layout, along with building code and fire/safety issues.

The replacement structure would be similar to the existing main building; however, it would not

be as tall (41 feet compared to 55 feet), and it would be designed so that additional assisted living

units could be accommodated on its third floor. This allows for a reduction in upper floor units

in a portion of the assisted living building along the Aqueduct. See Exhibit 25.

With regard to the existing main building, the applicants documents indicate that the structure

would not be eligible for historic designation by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).

The original structure has been significantly compromised with vinyl siding, building additions

and replacement windows. The originally designed grounds have also been significantly altered

with paved areas and a new ranch style building located on the southern portion of the site.

Furthermore, re-use of the building raises code compliance issues, including the need for a fire

wall and sprinklers throughout the structure. Handicapped access requirements to meet ADA

standards would include an elevator, exterior stairway, and a rebuilt interior staircase; all of

which would adversely affect the buildings character and appearance.

However, the Planning Board recognizes that a number of local residents believe that the main

building is of local historic value.

The applicant has also indicated that the existing building is not well suited for senior housing in

terms of accessibility (e.g., its front entry has a step up design that would require ramping and

the interior spaces are not easily adaptable for individual apartment units with bathrooms). In

contrast, the replacement building would be 14 feet lower, with the reduction in height benefiting

the views from the cooperative apartment building to the north at 14 South Broadway. The new

building would be fully fire proof and its interior design and access would meet senior housing

design standards and ADA requirements. The new building would be fully integrated into the

design of the balance of the development, including connections to below grade space.

The design of the new building would be similar to the original architecture of the main buildingbefore it was compromised with additions, siding etc. See Exhibits 20 and 21 which show the

proposed design for the replacement building and the height reduction when compared to the

existing main building.

Note also that this FEIS proposes assisted living buildings with pitched roofs. Flat roof buildings

could be provided, as shown in Exhibits 31-34. This approach would reduce the building height

by approximately six feet.


11/26


Both the DEIS plan and the FEIS plan included 121 units and 168 beds. In both the DEIS and the

FEIS plans, the common area includes a card room, bistro, resident lounge, barber/beauty shop,

childrens play area, art studio, wellness center and restaurant. However, in the FEIS plan service

areas and most of the parking are below grade.

The appl icant will appl y for State approvals, including an Enri ched Housing License. As noted,the proposed development wil l include 81 assisted l iv ing and 40 memory care units. It w il l notinclude independent l iv ing for seniors.

There wi ll be nurses who wil l w ork on-site at all t imes (24 hours per day/ seven days a week). Inaddi tion, Cert if ied Nursing A ssistants (CNA s) w il l provide assistance with A DLs (activit ies ofdaily li ving), which include bathing, dressing, grooming, and escorting a resident. There wi ll beat least one manager on the site at all times.

The staff will work three basic shifts per day: 7am to 3pm; 3pm to 11pm; and 11pm to 7am formost employees. The applicant w il l work w ith the Vi ll age admini stration to adjust the 3pm shif t

change time with regard to school dismissal if deemed necessary.

Three meals per day will be served in various dining venues. Indoor facilities will includebarber/ beauty shop, card room, liv ing room, lounge/ library , art stud io, fi tness room andwellness center. Outdoor areas will i nclude benches and walk ing paths. The memory carebuilding wil l be ful ly secured.

Whil e the facil ity wil l provide all of the daily needs of its residents, the appl icant w il l scheduleweekly van trips to downtown Irvington and other destinations for lunch, shopping andactiv it ies, which w il l support area businesses.

1.5 The FEIS Zoning Proposal

As in the DEIS, the proposed zoning has been drafted so that the proposed development could

proceed without any variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Although the final zoning

language will be refined by the Village Attorney and the Village Board of Trustees, the draft

zoning in this FEIS still calls for Assisted Living Residences as a Special Permit Use, with the

Planning Board having approval authority. The zoning language in the applicants draft still

includes a description of the purposes of the assisted living provision and specific qualifying

criteria for an MF site:

(1) The site must have frontage on Route 9/Broadway;

(2) The site must be within 1,500 feet of Main Street.

Lot and bulk controls have been modified in the current draft to correspond to the FEIS plan. The

off street parking requirement, at 0.4 spaces per unit, has been increase from 0.3 in the originally

proposed draft. Additional language relating to the minimum amount of indoor and outdoor

amenities has been added to the FEIS draft, as requested by the Village planning consultant.

The proposed zoning is included is provided as the final pages of this chapter.


12/26


1.6 Response to Planning Board Review Comments

As Lead Agency for environmental review of this proposal under SEQRA, the Planning Board is

required to ...weigh and balance relevant environmental impacts with social, economic, and

other considerations. (6 NYCRR 617.11(d)(2)). The purpose of the DEIS and the FEIS is to

provide the Planning Board with the necessary information for us to undertake that task.

With respect to social, economic, and other considerations, the Board recognizes that there are a

number of benefits to the proposed plan and zoning amendments as set forth in the FEIS. Those

benefits include the following:

1. The subject property, which is currently tax exempt, would be taken off the

exempt list and placed on the tax roll. This in turn would generate tax revenue to both the

Village and the school district. In particular, the Planning Board notes note that the tax revenues

for the school district would come with no impact whatsoever on the schools themselves in thatthere will be no additional school children generated by this assisted living proposal. Therefore,

not only will there not be any detrimental impact on the schools, the impacts will be positive.

2. In addition to the positive impacts for the school district, the proposal will also

have a positive fiscal impact on local businesses. The project is located within walking distance

to the Villages business district. This will provide an opportunity for the residents of the facility,

their guests, and the staff of the facility to shop in the business district, which not only provides

direct revenue to those businesses but also generates sales tax revenue.

3. The record established in the DEIS and the FEIS establishes that the foregoing

fiscal benefits are not accompanied by a number of other impacts, particularly traffic, whichwould be associated with other uses permitted in the MF zoning district. Those other uses,

which include multi-family housing, offices, churches, and schools, would all generate

significantly more traffic than the proposed assisted living facility, which is considered to be a

low traffic-generating use. It is understood that some form(s) of mitigation will have to be

devised to address specific turning movements at the site entrance during peak periods. Any

limited traffic impacts which might result from the proposal can be mitigated as set forth in the

DEIS and the FEIS.

4. The record also establishes that there are social benefits to the proposed project.

These benefits include the ability of Irvingtons seniors to remain in the Village, close to their

families. It also provides an opportunity for younger families living in the Village to locate their

parents in the Village. We note that 3.2 of the Villages Comprehensive Plan addresses

changes to local land use regulations so that new houses and roads either mesh with the

established settlement character or provide a benefit to the community, such as permanently

preserved open space or affordable or senior housing. This proposed project will provide senior

housing with an affordable component pursuant to the Westchester County Industrial

Development Agency Regulations.

While there are a number of benefits to the proposed project, as described above, there will also

be some environmental impacts that are not mitigated by design. The Planning Boards task as

Lead Agency, as set forth in the SEQRA Regulations, is to ensure that any potential


13/26


environmental impacts are mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. One such impact

resulting from the project will be the location of an emergency access drive within the Croton

Aqueduct buffer. This driveway is provided for health and safety reasons and will be mitigated

by screening and the existing wall that separates the site from the aqueduct trail. The drivewaywill be at ground level with minimal, if any, visual impacts.

During the construction process, there will be a significant number of truck trips with respect to

removing material from the site. That impact will be mitigated by a flag man located at the

intersection of the project driveway and South Broadway and is only expected to occur

intermittently for a period of approximately four months.

Concerns have been expressed over the visual impact of the project. As indicated in Section 1.4

of this FEIS, which describes the plan revisions made as part of this FEIS, the applicant has

mitigated these impacts by design. The plan proposed in the FEIS mitigates visual impacts by,

among other things, eliminating the significant building previously proposed along Broadway,

locating significant amenity space at a lower level not visible from the street, and breaking up the

massing of the building. The removal of the former estate building further addresses visual

impacts, by reducing building heights across from 14 South Broadway and along the Aqueduct.

Moreover, the plan also preserves several of the oldest and tallest trees on the edges of the site

and a large landmark sugar maple tree in the Plans central open space area.

The project will result in an increase in impervious surface. This will be mitigated by a

comprehensive stormwater management system and program, which will result in post

construction runoff being no greater than the existing conditions. In addition, the proposal

provides for the removal of a significant number of trees on the property. This removal is

necessitated by the proposed construction but will be mitigated by a substantial landscaping

program to be undertaken by the applicant, both on site and off site.

In order to fulfill its mandate under SEQRA as Lead Agency, the Planning Board requested the

applicant to provide an analysis of what could be developed on the site under the current zoning.

The Planning Board made this request to enable it to compare the existing zoning with the

proposed new special permit use requested by the applicant.

Initially, it is important to note that the SEQRA Regulations require an applicant to look at a

range of reasonable alternatives to the proposal that are feasible, considering the objectives and

capabilities of the projects sponsor. Accordingly, the Planning Boards request to the applicant

to analyze existing permitted uses in the MF zone, while the applicant is seeking an assisted

living facility, goes beyond what SEQRA provides. Nevertheless, the applicant has responded tothe request and has provided an analysis of various alternative developments that could take

place on the subject property under current zoning.

There has been discussion regarding the concept that, in order for the applicant to obtain the

requested zoning amendments, it must demonstrate that the proposed use is better than the

existing uses permitted in the MF zoning district. The determination as to what uses are to be

permitted in any particular zone is solely within the jurisdiction of the Village Board of Trustees.

The Planning Boards role as the SEQRA Lead Agency is to analyze the potential environmental

impacts of the proposal and determine whether potential adverse impacts can be appropriately


14/26


mitigated. It is up to the Village Board of Trustees to determine whether or not to add assisted

living facilities as a special permit use within the MF zoning district.

Requiring the applicant to demonstrate that its proposed use is better than any of the existinguses would lead to the illogical and unsupportable conclusion that each zoning district should be

limited to the best use for that district. That is simply not the case. Zoning ordinances are

historically designed to permit a mix of uses within any one district to, among other things,

promote vitality and economic viability within the community.

As noted above, the applicant, despite not being required to do so, has provided an analysis of

various development scenarios that could take place under the current MF zoning regulations.

Because the applicant is requesting the establishment of assisted living facilities as a special

permit use in the MF zoning district, the Planning Board requested that the applicant provide an

analysis of what could be developed in the MF zone, utilizing the special permit standards

already established for that zone. As the applicant has stated, one of the bases for requesting

bulk and area requirements different from those which already exist is the fact that the bulk and

area requirements for all of the special permit uses currently allowed in the MF zoning district

are identical, without regard to the special nature of each use. The applicant has pointed out

that, regardless of the use, the current special permit regulations for the MF zone provide for 100

foot setbacks on all sides and a maximum coverage of 15%.

As part of this FEIS, the applicant has submitted a schematic layout which shows a building fully

compliant with the foregoing special permit standards. See Exhibit 35, Full Compliance Site Plan.

The result of the application of those standards is a small building located approximately in the

center of the site, limited to approximately 29,190 s.f. Based upon the information provided by

the applicant, this building would not meet any of the programmatic needs for an assisted living

facility and could not be developed by the applicant.

The second comparison plan submitted by the applicant demonstrates a potential school

building, a principal permitted use. See Exhibit 36, School Alternative. The current regulations in

the MF zone permit a school or a church to be developed with a maximum building coverage of

30% (as opposed to 15% for special permit uses) as well as setbacks equal to the building height

(as opposed to 100 feet for special permit uses). Accordingly, the plan submitted by the applicant

for a school provides for a building coverage of 30% and side yard setbacks of 35 feet (the

maximum permissible height). This plan, like the fully compliant special permit plan, adheres to

the 125 foot Broadway buffer and the 50 foot Croton Aqueduct buffer. This plan shows a

significant increase in coverage over the assisted living facility proposed by the applicant,

together with significantly smaller side yard setbacks. We also note that the traffic impactsassociated with a school would be significantly worse than those of the proposed assisted living

facility. The daily activity, as well as special events at any school, will far exceed the similar

potential impacts of the proposed assisted living facility. The existing regulations hamper the

viability of constructing a church due to the requirement to construct at grade parking not less

than 100 feet to any property line. This forces the center of the property to be used for parking

and forces any building to the perimeter of the site.

Finally, the applicant has prepared a plan that follows the multi-family design standards with

respect to maximum coverage of 15%, side yards of 50 feet, a rear yard defined by the required


15/26


Aqueduct buffer of 50 feet and a front yard as defined by the Broadway buffer of 125 feet. See

Exhibit 37, Assisted Living Alternative. The resulting design proposes a 60,700 square foot (twice

the allowable coverage of 30,350 s.f.) in a two story structure not more than 35 feet in height.

Once the necessary space is allocated for amenities, circulation and other required commonspace, the number of residential units would be limited to no more than 25. Parking and site

circulation for operations and emergency purposes as well as parking have been designed to

meet the required setbacks. The resulting design forces the development to the center of the

property as well as significant massing along the Broadway and northern property lines.

It has been suggested by both the applicant and Village staff that the proposed assisted living

facility is most akin to a multi-family development. While the proposed size of the assisted living

facility is significantly greater than that of a multi-family dwelling project, the record reflects that

a significant percentage of the space in the assisted living facility is amenity space and that,

accordingly, approximately half of the floor area of the assisted living facility is empty, i.e.,

used by the residents of the assisted living facility. The applicant argues that the bulk and area

requirements for a multi-family project do not accurately reflect the nature of the assisted living

use or the programmatic needs of such a use and that, therefore, specific bulk and area

requirements are appropriate and necessary for a viable assisted living project.

The notion of utilizing the multi-family bulk and area requirements for the assisted living facility

raises the issue of the consistency of such a project with the character of the neighborhood.

Toward that end, The Planning Board looked at the adjacent development at 14 South Broadway.

That property is already developed with a multi-family community.

The FEE property should be a transition area between the medium density to the south and the

higher density areas to the north. In point of fact, Continuum developments F.A.R is

significantly less than that of 14 South Broadway, which results in the Continuum proposalacting as a transition in density.

In addition, it is important to understand that one of the functions of F.A.R., in limiting the

potential physical size of a project, is also to limit impacts resulting from that size. In other

words, F.A.R. is not designed solely to limit the physical size of a project. In a residential project,

such as this, F.A.R. would also impact on the number of dwelling units, the number of residents,

the amount of traffic generated by the use, impacts on schools, etc. For a traditional multi-family

development, these would be appropriate factors. However, F.A.R. is not necessarily an

appropriate measure for an assisted living facility, in which the residents are quite elderly, drive

very little, and have no impacts whatsoever on schools. In an assisted living facility, a significant

amount of the F.A.R. is used for amenity and related space which has no external impacts. Onthe other hand, multi-family developments, such as Irvington Estates utilize almost all of that

space for actual living purposes, with the concomitant impacts.

The proposed assisted living facility is less dense than 14 South Broadway and, accordingly, is

consistent with the character of this portion of South Broadway. In addition, the architecture of

the proposed assisted living facility is consistent with the character and history of the site. The

siting of the building, the retention of certain trees, the relative grade of the site and the lower

areas of the adjacent properties all serve to reduce visual impacts.


16/26


1.7 Summary of FEIS Responses to Major Issues

The following section provides a summary of the major issues raised in the DEIS and the

responses to these major issues in terms of plan changes or the provision of additional

information on potential impacts and miti gation.

Planning and Zoning

A number of comments raised issues about the appli cants proposed zoning amendment, whichwould permit assisted living in the MF zoning district as a Special Permit use. The FEIS responsesstated that the process being utilized by the Village to review the proposed amendment, whichwould be a Village Board of Trustees action with a recommendation from the Planning Board, isa common and well -accepted approach, and is not a technique for bypassing a request f orvariances from the Zoning Board of A ppeals. A zoning amendment is a legislative process that isa discretionary action by the Village Board, which is different from, and more rigorous than, a

vari ance request. Prior to consideri ng the amendment, the SEQRA review process needs to becompleted by the Planning Board, with the Village Board then informed about all of theenvironmental issues related to the proposed zoning amendment.

Questions were raised as to why the proposed zoning called for frontage on Route 9 andproximi ty to downtow n Irv ington. The appl icant proposed these Special Permit cri teria giventhe availability of Bee Line bus service on South Broadway, and the proximity of shops andrestaurants on M ain Street that w ould serve assisted li ving residents, famil ies and workers. TheVillage Board could delete these conditions, if it so chooses, and allow assisted living as a SpecialPermit use in the three other areas of the Village where MF zoning exists.

The Village Planning consultant made a number of suggestions with regard to the applicantsproposed zoning text, including requirements for State approval and standards for common openspace and amenity space. These changes have been made to the proposed zoning that is includedin this FEIS. The proposed zoning also increases the buf fer area requi rements back to the existi ngregulations, i.e., 50 feet from the Aqueduct and 125 feet from South Broadway, but withexceptions proposed for roadw ays, retaining wall s and parking. In additi on, the requiredamount of off-street parking was increased from 0.3 to 0.4 spaces per unit, which is consistentwith industry standards and the parking provided for other assisted living facilities in the area.

A number of comments raised issues w ith regard to the projects consistency w ith the Vil lageComprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not address assisted liv ing specif ically, butit does include references to senior housing. Wi th regard to the issue of Comprehensive Planconsistency, the Village Attorney commented that on page 27 of the Plan, the documentindentifies the subject site and states that zoning for this site should be consistent with public

goals that benefit the community, such as senior housing. The Comprehensive Plan is alwayssubject to review and modi fi cati on by the Vi ll age as deemed appropriate. Slavish adherence toan almost 10 year old Comprehensive Plan provides no opportunity for the municipality torecognize and deal w ith changing factors, such as demographics and the aging of our population.

But beyond this concern, a number of comments were raised with regard to the proposeddevelopments consistency with Comprehensive Plan objectives relating to building size, massand its effects on South Broadway and the Old Croton Aqueduct. As previously noted, theapplicants FEIS plan addresses these concerns by increasing setbacks, redesigning the SouthBroadway frontage, and placing approximately 25% of the program space and most of the offstreet parking below grade. The long, three story assisted l iv ing bui ld ing along South Broadway,


17/26


as shown in the DEIS Plan, has been removed in the FEIS plan. The view along South Broadw aynow includes a window into the sites centr al open space area. See Exhibi t 22, Open Space Area.

The FEIS responses further state the appl icants opinion that assisted liv ing on the subject site

would provide a transition from lower density uses to the south of the site to the adjacentmultifamily cooperative development to the immediate north and to the Village Main Streetcommercial area just beyond those apartments.

Traffic.

A revised traffi c study is included in the appendix of the FEIS. It addresses all the technicalcomments raised by the Vi ll age traffi c consul tant, including adjustments to the projected numberof trips generated by the proposed development based on 168 beds as opposed to 121 units. Theresults of the traffic study clearly demonstrate that all study area intersections will operate atacceptable levels of service in the peak AM, PM and Saturday hours. The total increase in Route 9traffic as a result of the development will amount to a 2% increase. The trip generation rates in

the traffic study account for employees, service vehicles and visitors.

A lthough the traffi c study was based on standard Insti tute of Traffi c Engineers (ITE)methodologies, the comments and responses in the DEIS addressed many non-technical issuesand communi ty concerns about t raff ic and safety on Route 9 and l ocal roads in the vicinity of thesubject site, including how shif t changes would affect traff ic conditions. For example, the FEISindi cates that left turns into and out of the site would not present a traffi c problem, given thewidth of the roadway and the widening of the site driveway. In order for unsignalizedintersections to meet Traffic Signal Warrants, the side road or driveway exiting volumes (minorstreet volumes) and major street volumes would have to meet traffic volume warrants. Typicall y,eight-hour warrants would have to be met and in some conditions four-hour warrants or peakhour w arrants could warrant a traff ic signal. The foll owing Table shows the required Traffi cSignal Warrants.

Eight Hour

Warrants

Warrant 1 Condition A Warrant 1 Condition B

M ajor Street M inor Street M ajor Street M inor Street

Volumes 350 150 525 53

Four Hour Warrants Major Street Minor Street

Volumes 800 60

Peak H our Warrants Total Intersection Volume M inor Street

Volumes 650 100

Based on the traffic volume projections in the Traff ic Impact Study, the dr iveway exit ing volume(minor street volume) would be 10 exiting vehicles during the Weekday Peak AM Highway Hourand 20 exit ing v ehicles dur ing the Weekday Peak PM Highw ay Hour. Based on the above Traff icSignal Criteria, the driveway volume (minor street volume) would not meet Traffic SignalWarrants. In addi tion, based on the projected operation of the dr iveway (Level of Serv ice D orbetter), a traffic signal would not be needed.

The FEIS notes that off peak traffic from shift changes would be less than traffic during peakhours. Since peak hour traffic results in acceptable levels of service, off peak traffic would also beacceptable.


18/26


However, the local resident issue of concern was the midday shift change that would occur atapproximately the same time as afternoon school dismissal. The number of employees from theassisted l iv ing development working on a 7am to 3pm shif t would li kely be about 44 persons,some of whom would use bus or train serv ice, whi le others would d ri ve. The volume of traff ic

from these employees would not affect the levels of service on the intersections in the study area.Survey of school bus activity along U.S. Route 9 in the vicinity of the site was conducted duringthe school hours of 2:00 PM and 4:00 PM. That survey indicates that school buses are spread outover this time period due to the staggering of pick-up times of the area schools (Dows LaneElementary School, Main Street School, Irvington Middle School and Irvington High School).Based on that survey, during any 15 minute period, there were on average 15 school busespassing this site. As is typi cal wi th school bus activ it y, traff ic stops in both directions allow ingsafe pick-up/ drop-off of children.

In addit ion, the distr ibuti on of traffi c during a shif t change wil l also be distributed over this timeperiod since all employees do not arr ive and depart at the same time. It is anticipated that onaverage there will be a total of 14 vehicles entering or exiting the site during any 15 minute

period during this time period based on survey of a similar facility (Atria on the Hudson,Ossining, New York).

Based on the observed school bus distribution patterns and anticipated employee distributionpatterns, the additional Continuum traffic will have a minimal impact on operating conditionsdur ing this period. Simil ar school bus operations wil l continue under existing and futureconditions.

Another issue was the amount of off -street park ing proposed for staff and vi sitors. The FEISresponses indicate that the 50 parking spaces that are provided meet industry standards forassisted li ving communi ties and are consistent with the park ing provided at comparable assistedli ving developments in nearby communit ies. It i s noted that there is a bus stop on Broadw ay,adjacent to the property, fur ther facil itating the abili ty of the employees to uti li ze public

transportation.

Parking dur ing project construction w as also raised as an issue. The appl icant clari fied i n theFEIS that the maximum number of workers on the sit e would be betw een 30 and 50. Temporaryparking for construction w orkers would occur on-site. The appl icant notes in the FEIS that theproject would result i n 175 total jobs; however, that estimate includes materi al deliv ery suppl iers,off-site fabricators and many others, as well as the on-site construction workers. Add it ionally, theapplicant responded in the FEIS that a flagman would be posted on Route 9 to facilitate trafficflow during construction.

Addit ional issues were raised regarding how the site would accommodate deliv eries and howthe internal road system addresses fi re truck access requi rements. Wi th regard to deliveries, theresponses in the FEIS note that the loading area has been relocated from the DEIS plans morevisible location near the South Broadway access drive, to the rear of the site, where in the FEISthe loading area is fully enclosed within the building. Deliveries would be scheduled for nonpeak hours. Deliveries would also be precluded fr om mid day (2pm to 4pm), when schooldi smissal occurs, Wi th regard to fi re access, the FEIS includes a plan showing appropriate roadwidths and turning radii for fire truck access, including circulation around the entire site.

Uti li ties and Stormwater M anagement.

Comments on water supply and sanitary sewerage were primari ly made by the Vil lage Engineerand are addressed wi th the engineeri ng plans submit ted as part of the FEIS. Although detailedplans have been provided sufficient for a SEQRA review, addit ional detail w ould be forthcoming


19/26


as part of a subsequent site plan review of the proposed development. An issue was raised by theCounty with regard to the increase in sewer flows and the effects on the Joint WastewaterTreatment Plant in Yonkers. It noted that as a matter of County DEF policy, it is recommendedthe measures be taken to offset the projects increased flow, presumably through reductions in

inf low/ infi ltr ation, at a 3:1 ratio. This specif ic mi tigation measure w il l be determined as part ofthe site plan approval process in conformity w ith the Vil lage and Westchester County Inflow andInfiltration Program objectives.

Stormwater issues raised by the Village engineer were also addressed in the FEIS by reference tothe detail ed plans and the Stormwater Poll ut ion Prevention Plan contained in the FEIS appendix.A comment was presented regarding runoff problems that currently exist to the immediatesouth of the subject site. The FEIS notes that the current 4.63 acre site has 1.06 acres of impervioussurface. Stormwater from this area is currently undetained and untreated. Under proposedconditions, there will be an increase of 1.3 acres of impervious area. The total of 2.35 imperviousacres will be treated with green infrastructure measures, and detained in underground pipespr ior to being released at a controlled rate of f low .

The port ion of the site that drains to the south w as analyzed as a separate sub-basin (4.11 acres ofthe 10.28 acre watershed). Under proposed condit ions this sub-basin is reduced to 2.6 acres ofwhich only .26 acres is impervious. This resul ts in a reduction of 40% of the peak runoff and areduction of 51% of the volume in a 1 year storm event.

With regard to the green infrastructure, the FEIS notes that this includes green roofs, porouspavement, stormw ater pl anters, hydrodynamic separators and underground detention p ipes.

Flora and Fauna.

There were a number of comments on tree removal. The Tree Inventory and Recommendations

indi cates 129 trees to be removed. Of the 129 trees to be removed, 47 are in poor condit ion or

worse and are unlikely to survive in the near term. The trees removed wi ll be replaced w ith 145

new evergreen and deciduous trees as shown on Exhibi t 3, Conceptual Landscape Plan.

As previously noted, the FEIS plan has a design that w ill implement pre and post constructionmeasures in an effort to save addit ional trees in crit ical locations, includ ing the trees inside theexisting loop road and the large silver maple tree behind the main building. The large silvermaple is a landmark feature in the FEIS plans central open space area. Wi th the new design, thisimportant tree will be visible from the South Broadway access road, where the plan provides anopen space window into the proposed development. The large sil ver maple tree (tree 101 on thesurvey) is one of many existing trees to remain on site. This tree is one of 6 trees which wi ll beevaluated during detailed construction design for practical measures that can be utilized toenhance their survivability.

In the FEIS the appl icant proposed tw o mit igation measures to address the trees that wil l beremoved as part of the development. The first is the landscaping plan that is presented in theFEIS, which includes trees and shrubs wi thin the development and along its edges. Speciallandscaping attention is provided to the common property l ine wi th the Irv ington Estatescooperative development, w here the appl icant and the co-op board are work ing together on p landetail s. Addit ional evergreen plantings have been added to the Old Croton Aqueduct and NorthBroadway setback areas, which have been i ncreased in depth in the FEIS plan. A secondmi ti gation measure noted in the FEIS (see response to comment 3.2.23 and Exhibi t 3) is theappli cants proposal for an off -site tree planting program that i t w ould develop w ith the Vil lageadministration.


20/26


The DEIS and the FEIS also describe a proposed t ree preserv ation plan, which w ould be designedto save as many trees as possible during the construction process. The Tree Inventory andRecommendati ons ind icates 129 trees to be removed. This includes 6 trees (numbers 51, 101, 121,

124, 137, and 150) that are to be evaluated during detailed construction design for practicalmeasures that can be ut il ized to enhance their survivabil ity. The tree preserv ation plan w ould bedesigned to protect and preserve all those trees not designated for removal. It is possible thatduring the final design process opportunit ies may develop to preserve some of the trees that arecurrently designated for removal. The plan wil l be further detailed as part of the constructiondocumentation when the project advances to that stage.

The Irvi ngton Envir onmental Conservation Board raised an issue regard ing on-site habitat giventhe sites proximity to the Barney Brook, the Aqueduct and migratory bi rds in t he sites envi rons.The projects environmental specialists response in the FEIS described his on-site surveys andthe connectivi ty betw een this site and surrounding areas. The sites separation from the BarneyBrook, the lack of w etlands and w ater features and other factors were cited by the applicants

environmental consultant as a basis for the limited wildlife activity that actually occurs on thesite.

Economics

There were a number of questions raised and comments responded to in the FEIS, focusing onprojected tax revenues, costs for Vi l lage serv ices, monthly charges, and the market for assistedhousing in Irvington,

Projected tax revenues for purposes of the DEIS were based on 2010 data from seven otherassisted living developments in Westchester. The result was an estimated $5,000 in tax revenuesper uni t. Wi th 121 uni ts, the total real estate tax for all taxing jur isdictions was over $600,000 peryear. Of this amount, nearly 60%, or $353,000 would go the Ir vi ngton School Distr ict, and over

27% or $164,000 would go to the Vi ll age, annually. In response to comments, the appl icantcontacted the Greenburgh tax assessor who indicated that an assessment would be made at alater stage in the process.

Other comments raised issues regarding the permanence of the tax revenues and possiblecertiorari proceedings that could be pursued to reduce taxes. The applicants response in the FEISindi cated that the appl icant would be wil ling to enter into a PILOT agreement w ith theWestchester County Industrial Agency and the Village to ensure that taxes based on fair valueare paid over 15 years.

Regardless of the eventual assessment, the development will result in a significant tax surplus.There will be no school age children, and no direct costs to the school di str ict. Even if some of theproposed units are occupied by Village residents who sell their present homes to families with

school age children, the likelihood is great that those seniors would be moving in any event toanother assisted living facility or other accommodation, selling their Irvington house to a youngfamily.

In terms of Vi ll age costs to provide serv ices to the development, the Vil lage planning consultantcalled for an analysis of potential costs to serve the development using standard methodologies.In response, the following modified per capita cost analysis was undertaken in the FEIS for the168 future residents. Of the 2012 Vi ll age General Fund budget of approximately $15,000,000, $6.3million is allocated to community service lines, including police protection, fire, safety, parks,recreation, library, seniors, refuse collection and recycling. For purposes of the per capita analysisit is assumed that service would increase in response to this or any development.


21/26


The 168 persons in the assisted living project would represent about 2.5% of the Villagepopulation. If this were not an assisted living facility for older seniors and those who needmemory care, and if the development did not include all of the amenities for its residents as it

does, a per capita cost analysis would assume that each resident would cost the Vil lage aproporti onate share of the overall serv ice costs or 2.5% for the enti re development. Mul tiplying2.5% by $6.3 mil l ion gives a total per capi ta cost of $940 per person.

However, the proposed development will take care of many of the services otherwise providedVi ll age on-site with no cost to the Vil lage. For exampl e, there w il l be a priv ate carter for garbagecollection. Simil arl y, snow plowing wil l be done by pri vate contractors. Residents wil l li kely usethe on-site library , recreati on facil it ies and other on-site ameniti es more so than using the Vil lagefacil it ies and serv ices. Based on input from the Vi ll ages planning consul tant, a conservativepercentage of assumed ut il ization was assigned to each serv ice li ne including 100% for police,fire, safety and senior services. The result of this conservative analysis results in an estimatedservi ce cost of approximately $100,000 per year. The $65,000 balance would be available to cover

any additional Village administrative costs to serve the development. Details are provided in theFEIS as responseto comment 3.11.4.

The Irvington School District would receive significant tax revenues from the proposeddevelopment, estimated to be $353,000 per year.

Comments on the DEIS also were raised on the projected rents and how they compare with othernearby f acil it ies. In the FEIS the appl icant identifi es the projects estimated monthly cost forassisted l iv ing ranging from $3,000 for a shared assisted li ving unit to $7,500 per month for a two-bedroom unit, and $5,500 for a shared unit to $7,000 for a memory care unit at the proposeddevelopment. These costs are slightly lower than the monthly costs at the Atria in Ossining, theA tr ia in Briarcli ff Manor and the Kensington i n Whi te Plains. The rents for assisted li vi ng at theWoodlands in Ardsley range from $5,800 to $6,200 for a stud io uni t, from $6,400 to $6,900 for a

one-bedroom unit , $7,900 for a two-bedroom unit , and $8,595 for a stud io memory care uni t.

A question w as raised about potenti al IDA fi nancing and rents. A lthough IDA fi nancing wil l bepursued, there would be no impacts on rents. IDA f inancing would, however, requir e that 20%of the units be set aside for individuals at or below 50% of Westchesters median income.

Finally , several comments focused on the market for assisted l iv ing in Ir vington. The FEISprovides information fr om the appl icants market analysis which documents the need for assistedliving to serve the rapidly growing elderly population i n the County. It also responds to questionabout other assisted li vi ng projects in the County, includ ing the 90 unit project recently proposedon Route 119 in the Town of Greenburgh.

The Market Study that is summarized in the FEIS responses indicates that there are over 10,000net quali fi ed seniors in the market area, of which about 10% are considered as the potential thatthe Irvington assisted livi ng development could be expected to draw from.

Community Facilitiesand Emergency Services

The most significant community facility issue regarding the proposed development is theprovision of emergency services provided by the Irvington Volunteer Fire Department (IVAC).A number of comments and concerns were raised, responses were provided and a proposedmitigation program was set forth in t he FEIS.


22/26


It is recognized that IVAC performs an essential community service to the Village of Irvington.Like many volunteer organizations, it has a manpower problem w ith an insuff icient number oftrained EMTs and ambulance drivers. Unl ike other serv ices, IVAC wil l not receive revenues fromthe Village from the taxes generated by the proposed development.

Emergency serv ice calls at the assisted l iv ing facil it y w il l be made by the professional staff that i son duty at the time of the incident. Dur ing all shif ts, there wil l be an RN or LPN on site.Addit ional staff w il l includes Certi fied Nursing Assistants, and a ful l time manager. If it is anemergency that requires a tr ip to the hospital, a 911 call w il l be made by the staff . This issignificantly different than an independent living facility, where the considerably youngerseniors often make 911 call s themselves. But beyond that disti nction, the appl icant will alsocontract with a priv ate ambulance serv ice for routine doctor visits and non emergency situations,thus further avoiding unnecessary IVAC and 911 call s.

IVAC wi ll receive the call s, estimated by the appl icant at 6 to 10 per month for the assisted livi ngfacility. Based on current procedures, 911 calls are responded to by the Police Department, since

there is going to be a nurse on staff at all times, this could potentially change. They will beaccompanied to the site by the Irv ington Police. IVA C wi ll be reimbursed for t he call through thepersons insurance.

The estimated number of ambulance calls per month has been established by comparing theactual number of calls per month from the Atria Briarcliff Manor. According to informationprovided by the Briarcliff Manor Fire Chief, Michael King, the Atria Briarcliff Manor has anaverage of 11.58 call s per month. As per Mr. King many of t he call s occurred during the eveningand weekends, when Atri a Briarcli ff i s not staffed by an RN or an LPN. In addi tion, we feel thatmany of these calls were non-emergent and could have been serviced by a private ambulanceservi ce. The Atri a Briarcli ff Manor has 200 licensed beds and does not have a nurse on site 24hours/ day. The proposed Continuum Liv ing at I rvi ngton wil l have 168 beds and a nurse wil l beon site at all times. As such, the applicant anticipated an average of 6 to 10 calls per month from

the proposed project.

In order to mitigate the impacts of the additional service calls, the applicant has proposed thefollowing program:

1) It wil l employ a nurse on site at all times (24 hours per day, 7 days per w eek) in an effort t odi rectly reduce the number of unnecessary 911 calls.

2) It w il l make a substanti al monetary contr ibution of $32,000 annuall y to be used to employ afull time EMT at IVAC. Based on an ongoing dialogue with Al Kim, Director of Stellaris, an EMTin Westchester County makes appr oximately $15/ hr (or $31,200 annually). This full timeposit ion w il l be empl oyed for 40 hours per week or 160 hours per month. Based on thi scalculation, If the highest end of the estimate of 911 calls is assumed (10 calls per month) and theaverage call takes a total of 5 hours of time, the net effect would be 50 hours of EMT time permonth to attend to call s from the proposed facili ty. The balance (160 hours per month, less 50hours per month attending to Continuum) leaves 110 hours per month of time that the EMT candedicate to other calls at IVAC. Based on this calculation, this addition to IVAC far exceeds theimpact of the call s projected at the proposed assisted l iv ing facili ty and would be of benefi t to theVillage.

3) It wil l cater events at IVA C and promote and sponsor annual fundr aisers as well.


23/26


Alternatives.

The Proposed A ction in this FEIS call s for a plan that replaces the main buil ding on the site. Forcomparison purposes, the FEIS also includes the alternative of adaptively re-using the main

bui ld ing, which was proposed in the DEIS plan.

There were a number of questions on the alternatives presented in the DEIS, includingA lternative 7A, which is the DEIS alternative that called for the demoli ti on of the main bui ld ingon the site, replacing it w ith a simil arl y designed, but smaller buil ding on the same port ion of theproperty , i.e., across f rom the adjacent cooperative apartments.

The responses to comments in the FEIS noted that, in the appl icants opinion, the main bui ld inghas been altered to an extent that it is not considered to be eligible for the National Register.Portions of the building have been demolished; in other areas, building additions have beenmade. The exterior has been altered with vinyl cladding. Moreover, the buil ding has fi re codeand accessibility issues that would need to be addressed. Its interior layout and room

configuration are addit ional i ssues in a potential reuse.

If the existing main building were demolished, its replacement building would be located on thesame port ion of the site. It would have a very simi lar architectural design to the existing building;however, it would be 41 feet in height as opposed to the 55 foot existing main building. The newbuil dings basement would connect w ith the below grade facili ties proposed on the balance of thesite, full y i ntegrating this building with the other new build ings and their common facil iti es. Thereplacement bui lding would have eight assisted l iv ing uni ts in its upper floors, which wouldenable the assisted living building proposed along the Aqueduct to be reduced in height fromthree stories to two stories, which is the same height as the memory care building.

The alternative plan with adaptive re-use of the main build ing w ould not provide this reductionin height along the Aqueduct since it would not contain any assisted l iv ing units.


24/26


VILLAGE OF IRVINGTON

Local Law No. ___ For the Year 2012

A local law to amend Chapter 224 of the Village of Irvington Code with respect to permitted

uses within the Multifamily Residence (MF) District.

Section 1. Amend Section 224-17(E) by adding a new subsection, to be designated as Section

224-17(E)(1)(f) as follows:

224-17(E)(1)(f) Assisted Living Residences, subject to the following requirements,

notwithstanding any other provisions of this Chapter:

[1] Purpose. This use is established for the purpose of furthering the goals of theIrvington Comprehensive Plan by permitting the establishment of a specialized,

for-profit assisted living development for the elderly. In such development,

accommodation can be made for the range of needs of those elderly who neitherwant nor need placement in a hospital or nursing home. Assisted living

communities shall be designed to achieve compatibility with their surroundings

and to encourage orderly and well planned development. Assisted livingdevelopments shall be of a scale and location that will make it feasible to

construct a comprehensive package of supporting utilities, services, and facilities,

so as to achieve a development which is environmentally, physically, visually,and economically sound. Certain accessory uses that are requisite, desirable, and

convenient for assisted living for the elderly will also be allowed.

[2] Permitted Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted inconjunction with an assisted living residence:

[a] Indoor and outdoor recreation and activities for residents and their guestsonly.

[b] Continuing education, crafts and hobbies for residents and their guests

only.[c] Living, dining, laundry, security and housekeeping facilities for common

use of residents only.

[d] Central kitchen for food served in dining areas or distribution to individualdwelling accommodations and units.[e] Dining room for residents and their guests only, with no cash transactions

allowed.

[f] Medical and dental services for residents only with no cash transactionsallowed.

[g] Small interior shops for the sale of goods or rendering of personal services

(such as hairdresser, etc.) only to residents, with no cash transactionsallowed.

[h] Off-street parking areas and underground parking facilities.


25/26


[i] Signs and outdoor lighting.

[3] Eligibility for special permit. In order to qualify for a special permit for an

assisted living residence, the following requirements must be met:

[a] The site must have frontage on Route 9/Broadway;

[b] The site must be within 1,500 feet of Main Street;

[c] Twenty-four hour on-site security or building management must beprovided;

[d] The applicant must be eligible for all necessary state licenses for the

operation of an assisted living community.

[4] Physical Dimensional Requirements. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this

Chapter, the physical and dimensional requirements for assisted living

communities shall be as follows:

[a] Minimum Lot Area: 4 acres

[b] Minimum Frontage: 400 feet[c] Minimum Front Yard: 125 feet

[d] Minimum Side Yard: 40 feet

[e] Minimum Rear Yard: 50 feet[f] Maximum Building Coverage: 20 % *

[g] Maximum Building Height: 45 feet

[h] Minimum Passive OutdoorRecreation Space per resident: 50 s.f.

[i] Minimum Interior CommonSpace per resident: 70 s.f.

Notwithstanding the provisions set forth in [c], [d], and [e] above, 224-51 (B)

requiring a Broadway buffer of 125 feet, and 224-51(C) requiring a Croton

Aqueduct buffer of 50 feet, the following shall be permitted within buffers andsetbacks: (i) driveways; (ii) emergency access driveways; (iii) parking spaces; and

(iv) retaining walls.

* Building coverage shall not include green roofs or other permeable surfaces,

including lawn areas.

[5] Building Length. No single side of a building may exceed 260 feet in length.

[6] Outer Courts. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this code, outer courts

shall be permitted, the dimensions of which shall be subject to Planning Boardapproval.

[7] Off-Street Parking. There shall be not less than 0.4 off-street parking spaces foreach assisted living unit therein. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, if the

Planning Board, as part of the site plan approval process, determines that less than


26/26

the required number of parking spaces will satisfy the intent of this Chapter,because of variations in the time of maximum use or any other reason, the

Planning Board may waive the improvement of not more than 25% of the

required number of parking spaces. In such case, it must be demonstrated on thesite plan that sufficient usable lot area remains for the eventual provision of thetotal number of required parking spaces. All unimproved parking spaces shall be

used and maintained as landscaped grounds until required for parking, and must

be improved for parking in accordance with the site plan within six (6) months ofwritten notice if given by the Planning Board to the property owner stating that

improvement of all or a portion of the parking spaces is necessary. In making

such determination the Planning Board shall take into account anyrecommendation made by the Village Building Inspector.

Section 2. Conflicting Standards.

Where the requirements of the Local Law impose a different restriction or requirement than

imposed by other sections of the Code of the Village of Irvington, the Village Law of the State ofNew York or other applicable rules or regulations, the requirements of this Local Law shall

prevail.

Section 3. Severability.

The invalidity of any word, section, clause, paragraph, sentence, part or provision of this locallaw shall not affect the validity of any other part of this local law that can be given effect without

such invalid part or parts.

Section 4. Effective Date.

This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and filing with the Secretary of

State.

Documents

Draft FEIS Jan 2013 Revised Chapter 1 - Introduction